Bangalore Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Anil Kumar Accused in 2012 Dacoity Case Due to Prior Arrest and Abscondence

Bengaluru, August 22, 2023 – In a significant development, the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge in Bengaluru, Sri. B.G. Pramoda, dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by an accused involved in a 2012 dacoity preparation case. The court ruled that the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was not maintainable because the petitioner, Anil Kumar, had already been arrested and granted regular bail in the original case, and was now facing a split-up trial due to his subsequent non-appearance.

The order, issued in Crl.Misc.No.7771/2023 on August 22, 2023, underscores the critical distinction between anticipatory bail and regular bail, and highlights the judicial recourse available when an accused defaults on court appearances.

Background of the Case

The case originates from Crime No. 254/2012 registered at the Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to the preparation for dacoity.

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, S/o Late. Nagaraj, aged about 30 years, and a resident of Kadirenahalli, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, was listed as Accused No. 2 in the charge sheet.

According to the court records:

The petitioner was initially arrested by the respondent police in Crime No. 254/2012.
He was granted regular bail in the said crime vide Crl.Misc.No.3076/2012.
After the case was committed, S.C.No.1236/2012 was registered against the petitioner and co-accused.
The petitioner appeared in S.C.No.1236/2012 and secured fresh regular bail on January 29, 2012.

The Abscondence and Split-Up Trial

The core issue leading to the current petition was the petitioner’s failure to appear before the court after obtaining bail in S.C.No.1236/2012. The petition claimed the non-appearance was “due to collecting wrong dates.”

Due to his absence, the court ordered a split-up case to be registered against him. A split-up charge sheet was filed, leading to the registration of S.C.No.157/2022. Following this, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against Anil Kumar.

Fearing arrest based on the NBW, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Petitioner’s Arguments for Anticipatory Bail

Represented by Advocate Sri. Shaik Babu S., the petitioner argued that:

He had a reasonable apprehension of arrest as the police were frequently visiting his house.
He is a permanent resident of the mentioned address and hails from a respectable family with deep roots in society.
He was ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court, including offering surety, for his enlargement on bail.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Karnataka by Jayanagar Police Station, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, filing an objection along with the Investigating Officer’s report. The prosecution contended that:

The alleged offences (Sec. 399, 402 IPC) are grave in nature and harmful to society.
The petitioner had absconded after previously obtaining regular bail, which necessitated the registration of the split-up S.C.No.157/2022.
Enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail would allow him to abscond again, delay the trial, threaten the prosecution witnesses, and potentially commit similar offences in the future.

The Court’s Rationale and Ruling

Upon hearing both arguments and scrutinizing the records, Judge B.G. Pramoda framed the key point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for granting anticipatory bail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,?”

The court emphatically answered this point in the Negative.

The judgment clarified the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C., stating:

“The petitioner has already obtained bail in Crime No.254/2012 of Jayanagar police station. When the petitioner is already arrested and when he has obtained the regular bail from this court, the petitioner is not entitle for anticipatory bail U/s 438 of Cr.P.C.”
“Anticipatory bail U/s 438 of Cr.P.C can be granted only at the initial stage of any crime before arrest of the accused in view of apprehension of his arrest.”
“The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. can not be exercised if the accused is already arrested during the course of investigation of the case.”

Since the records clearly showed that Anil Kumar had been arrested in the original Crime No. 254/2012 and subsequently obtained regular bail, his plea for anticipatory bail was deemed non-maintainable.

Furthermore, given that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was outstanding against him in S.C.No.157/2022, the court observed that the only legal option remaining for the petitioner was to surrender before the court and file a necessary application to recall the warrant issued against him.

Concluding that the petition was misconceived and not maintainable, the court formally dismissed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

This ruling serves as a vital legal precedent, reinforcing the established principle that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest remedy and cannot be used to circumvent an arrest resulting from a warrant issued due to default on a previously granted regular bail. Anil Kumar must now face the warrant and surrender before the court dealing with S.C.No.157/2022 to seek further relief.